U.S. Supreme Court backed rights of the state

Dan Trujillo, left, and Clyde Peck get married as people gather to show support of marriage equality at Washington Square, just outside of the Salt Lake City and County Building in Salt Lake City on Dec. 23. The Supreme Court, on Jan. 6, 2014, put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue. (Tom Smart, The Deseret News/AP file)

Thank heaven for a U.S. Supreme Court that unanimously recognizes the validity of state law and the consideration that must be given to activist decisions which attempt to overturn it.

Judge Robert Shelby made a mistake in what he did. State rights are paramount in matters such as this, and must be carefully viewed. Thirty-two states have similar laws prohibiting homosexual marriages; Utah is not alone.

If the federal government started violating the 10th Amendment, which grants states the right to make their own laws, it would be a serious problem for our nation. Fortunately, the level-headed Supreme Court justices recognize this.

Jim Green, Heber City, Utah

This letter was published in the Jan. 8 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

A federal judge ruled Utah’s ban was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court stayed the order, until appeals from Utah or other states could work their way through appellate courts.
Nothing unremarkable about it. It happens all the time.
People who scream “states’ rights” make me squeamish. “States’ rights” was used to justify Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, used to try to stop federal labor laws, to stop federal anti-pollution laws, etc. “States’ rights” has a long, very sorry history.
Funny how, in Mr. Green’s eyes, the 18 states that have some form of civil recognition of same-sex unions don’t seem to have states’ rights. Just the states who uphold Mr. Green’s views.

thor

pete, I hate to break this to you, but I have a strong feeling that Mr. Green would want states rights to apply to the 18 states that have some form of civil unions. And if states rights make you squeamish, what else in the Constitution makes you squeamish? And I love the way you throw around the word “justify.” You spend a lot of time on this blog “justifying” the excess regulations(Not reasonable regulations, which is what I want) that are killing our jobs and the economy. And you will go to your grave “justifying” President Obama, no matter how much evidence piles up to show how much of an amateur he is.

peterpi

You spend time justifying your opinions, so, what?
He didn’t mention those 18 states that recognize same-sex unions, did he?
Like I said, the Supremes granted the stay, in order to let the appeals process run its course. Nothing more, nothing less.
How would you like it if you and Mrs. thor visited AR or CT or ND, and were told your marriage is no good there?

thor

I wouldn’t move to those states,but visiting wouldn’t be a problem. And why would he mention states that didn’t reinforce his argument. You have a weird way of arguing at times.

peterpi

Visiting would be a problem if other states didn’t recognize your marriage.

Old_Enough

Someone has started moderating my posts and I don’t know why.

ags4ever

Why should anyone recognize a marriage of a teen under the age of 16 or of any union of two persons of the same gender? Both are illegal and immoral.

Old_Enough

Visiting would be a problem if you weren’t allowed to sleep in the same hotel room because they didn’t recognize your marriage.

tomfromthenews

“He didn’t mention those 18 states that recognize same-sex unions, did he?”

No, but thor has a “strong feeling”, so it’s a foregone conclusion.

johnrpack

My marriage doesn’t need government recognition. In fact, I’d prefer that the government say nothing whatsoever on the subject for anyone (hetero, homo, pedo, commune, poly, etc.) — there is no Constitutional power granting them any say on the subject at all.

peterpi

I’m with you on four out of the five you mention. I don’t think they’re anybody’s business.
When the rightie-tighties scream “Well, what about polygamy?”, I’m their worst nightmare: I answer back “Well, what about it? If it is freely and voluntarily entered into by informed, consenting adults, how is it your business?”
But adults marrying youngsters, I think there is a public or societal interest in avoiding. I feel children cannot give informed consent. There are power and control issues involved. Even the Duck Commander put in a floor of age 15.

johnrpack

Oh, I wouldn’t recommend anyone get married before about 25, but marriage used to be legal in many states as young as 14. Who am I to stop a youth who wants to get away from abusive parents by getting married? The key is that it be legal and that all parties must consent at the courthouse.

ags4ever

most states have the age of consent for both boys and girls at a minimum of 16.

ThePyro

I tend to agree with your assessment on the last paragraph…but it’s a dicey issue no matter which way it floats. Thanks to State’s Rights, we have sanctions on marriage (play that how you like, depending on your point of view)…but also the 19th Amendment, thanks to states like Colorado taking up the torch locally. The retention of, but also the abolition of, slavery happened at a State’s Right level before gaining their respective voices at the national level. Same with abortion/choice, insurance models and a bunch of other stuff. For all the “bad” people see in it, there’s a whole lot of “good” that results, too…obviously, depending on their particular perspectives on the issue at hand.

guesswhodrews

Well put.

tomfromthenews

“Thirty-two states have similar laws prohibiting homosexual marriages.” That’s 32 states and counting…DOWN.

This little bump will not overturn legal same-sex marriages already performed (there have been many hundreds of them in Utah). This (the stay) is identical to what happened in California and when it finally got to the SCOTUS, equal marriage was eventually reinstated. Last time I looked, Utah and California were both states, equal in the eyes of the high court.

Marriage equality is coming everywhere. We just have to be patient.

johnrpack

Really? Is it coming for polygamists of all varieties (multi-men, multi-women, commune)? How about people who want to marry a cat (or horse)? Or is it just the equality that you, personally, believe in that’s coming?

tomfromthenews

The equal marriage issue does not concern polygamists or insane people who want to marry animals. Are we still addressing such moronic ideas?

Adult, consensual same-sex marriage, as it exists in 17 states currently, will be the norm everywhere before long, and you know it.

guesswhodrews

Isn’t the limitation of two people in a marriage just as arbitrary was two people of a different sex? I don’t think this genie will go back in the bottle after gay marriage is settled one way or another.

ktrav

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Religions can do whatever they want. However, polygamy is still illegal in Utah and not really for religious reasons anymore. Polygamous marriages in Utah already flout the law in that only one wife is the legal wife while the other wives are considered ‘single mothers’ by the state and get a ton of social services money. How else do you think these ‘families’ survive? (the ones without ‘reality’ shows, that is.)

Basically, it’s a completely false comparison with regards to the law and all the legal rights related to government-sanctioned marriage. Religions can do whatever they want and usually do. Right-wing religions hating on gay people is an atrocity but is always defended simply because the hate is coming from a religion.

peterpi

Polygamy is illegal precisely because of religious or moral issues. It was a way of attacking the Church of the Latter-Day Saints. I think the Mormons are so adamantly and publicly opposed to same-sex marriage to show how respectable they are, to show how “two-heterosexual-parent family-values” they are. They don’t want anyone getting ideas they might go back to polygamy.
The federal government occupied Salt Lake City with troops during Utah’s statehood process. The federal government, um, strongly encouraged the State of Utah to ban polygamy in its state constitution. The Congress of the United States inserted language into the enabling act making Utah a state that explicitly says that if the polygamy section of the Utah state constitution is removed, Congress can void Utah statehood.

ags4ever

The laws against polygamy existed long before Joseph Smith created the Mormon Church by plagiarizing a novel written several years previously. That was why infidels like Muslims were not allowed to have more than one wife in this country while they lived here as ambassadors or consuls.

gays4ever

The laws against polygamy existed long before Joseph Smith created the
Mormon Church by plagiarizing a novel written several years previously.
That was why infidels like Muslims were not allowed to have more than
one wife in this country while they lived here as ambassadors or
consuls.

ags4ever

plagiarizing others posts is still against the terms of use of this forum, caledonia.

guesswhodrews

So you are saying that polygamy and gay marriage are not related because marriage is defined as a legal contract between two consenting adults. Up to 10 years ago it was defined as a legal contract between two consenting adults of opposite sexes.

I know you think you are being clear and this makes sense to you, but you aren’t and it doesn’t answer my concern.

tomfromthenews

Polygamy IS a different issue. It is not relevant to the quest for marriage equality for lesbians and gays.

And what exactly IS your “concern” as far as same-sex marriage goes? If you are straight and married, marriage equality for LGBT’s doesn’t change your married life one bit.

AND since you acknowledge that gay marriage has existed in the U.S. for ten years and hasn’t gone away, efforts (such as those in Utah) to “reverse” marriage equality will continue to fail. There will always be setbacks to the cause, but the ultimate road ahead is clear.

ags4ever

How is polygamy a different issue? Both violate the biblical concept and factual concept that marriage only consists of the union of one genetically male human being to one genetically female human being. That is what marriage is. Not the sodomy that you perverts want to force the rest of society to accept as valid.

tomfromthenews

You don’t have to “accept” anything. But you don’t get to tell me, a perfect stranger, that my love is “less than” yours and does not deserve validation. It must be strange watching the world pass you by.

ags4ever

You are trying to force acceptance of your blatant sin on the majority. You have no right to do so. Your sin has already been judged, and you will spend eternity regretting your choices as you burn in a lake of fire.

ags4ever

What love? It has long been known that homosexual “love” is based on mutual hatred and loathing of each participant for themselves, for they know that they are doing wrong when they have sex with a person of the same gender.

Homosexual sex is never acceptable, for men aren’t equipped with the proper equipment for having sex with another man, and women aren’t equipped with the proper equipment for having sex with another woman.

Your disgusting perversions deserve no acceptance by the majority for you don’t even like it yourselves.

ags4ever

Again, the king of liars speaks, spouting his’/her blatant lies without ceasing. Nothing you state has any validity, caledonia.

johnrpack

Homosexuals who wanted to marry where “insane” just 25 years ago. Was it a moronic idea back then?

tomfromthenews

Actually it’s been 39 years since the APA declassified homosexuality as a disorder. And yes, said declassification came about because it is a moronic idea that persons of homosexual orientation are ill.

For the record, it was also stupid to deny women the vote or persons of different races the right to marry. As society progresses, what was once unusual or even forbidden becomes commonplace, more people are happy, and the world does not come to an end. So, too, will it be with this issue.

ags4ever

Yes, it was, and still is.

ags4ever

You are right, caledonia, you have stated another blatant lie and are without any doubt the king of liars on this forum.

Papa Smurf

If you start from the premise that *who* someone marries (hetero-, homo-, inter-racial, etc.) is none of the government’s business, then logically, it must follow that *how many* people someone marries is none of the government’s business, either, providing that all parties to these marriages are consenting adults. Inter-species marriage, on the other hand, would probably be a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, as would be marriages involving young ‘uns.

tomfromthenews

But we are not currently engaged in a discussion of*how many*. The current debate is about*who*. And regardless of what just happened in Utah, the national inevitability is toward full equal marriage for gays and lesbians. The arc of history bending toward justice and all.

Papa Smurf

I have no argument with that. But there are some (not a lot, but some) who are keenly interested in the *how many* question, and are looking to the same sex marriage rationale(s) to bolster their own arguments for their agenda… and it’s a sound argument.

tomfromthenews

Well, there are a lot (not some but a lot) of folks who are interested in and following current trends in the *who* question. Polygamy is mostly seen as religion-based while same-sex marriage is currently seen as more of a civil/human-rights issue. I would think the number of people who want to marry more than one person as a non-religious, civil rights issue is practically nil. Do you have any statistics?

Papa Smurf

No. And personally, I think anyone who would try to keep up with more than one woman is waaay crazy. But the truth is, they’re out there. Not in large numbers, to be sure, but still….

ags4ever

same-sex marriage is regarded as the homosexual minority forcing acceptance of its perversions on the majority.

ags4ever

Wrong. After Jesus Christ returns, no sinners such as homosexuals will be around. They will be sent into the place they have chosen by their sins.

ags4ever

If they have been declared invalid by the court of Utah, then they are invalid marriages.

tomfromthenews

They’re only “invalid” until the next court strikes down the stay. The world is coming around to marriage equality and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Sorry.

ags4ever

Homosexuals have never had any “right” to impose acceptance of their perverted, disgusting way of life on others. Your hatred of freedom comes from your master, the devil.

ags4ever

You really love to project your own proclivities on others, caledonia. You are a liar, for i’ve never even visited any “white swallow club”, nor am I openly gay, which is another of your blatant, disgusting lies. I have also never posted on other websites about spending any time at all at this club, despite your blatant, disgusting lies. The only person who is likely to have done so is yourself.

WHy don’t you get honest for once and admit that you are a liar and a stalker? For nothing you state has any validity whatever.

Who is “outraged” except at the blatant sinning of those who want to force acceptance of their sinful choice of lifestyle on the majority?

johnrpack

If the federal government started violating the 10th Amendment, which grants states the right to make their own laws, it would be a serious problem for our nation.

If? Started?

Where have you been for the last century?

The only way the 10th amendment will be respected is if the States call a Constitutional Convention and take back the power that’s rightfully theirs.

peterpi

The last time a federal-level constitutional convention was called, it was given the mission of fixing the Articles of Confederation — and instead, it scrapped the Articles altogether, and replaced them with the current US constitution.
Think about the full ramifications of that for a second.
A constitutional convention, in other words, can do what it pleases. It may go the way you want — or delegates could eviscerate the current Second Amendment, give the federal government primacy over the states in environmental laws, declare mainstream Protestant Christianity to be the official religion of the United States, etc.
You want the 10th Amendment strengthened? Get Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states to that effect. Or elect people to Congress and the presidency who agree with you.
Yes, the states would still have to approve the results, but I think all serious-minded conservatives and liberals should avoid a constitutional convention like the plague.

guesswhodrews

I agree. Both sides have toyed with the idea of a Constitutional Convention, but the outcome would destroy 225 years of interpreting the Constitution and may end up with neither side getting what they thought they would get. Better to amend the Constitution as the founders intended.

johnrpack

See above. Not likely.

guesswhodrews

The problem as I see it is that your wild eyed ideas would come from implementation, not what is on paper. Look at Obamacare. It was 913 pages of bill which has spawned over 20,000 pages of regulations including things that were never supposed to occur.

BTW, when the Constitution was written the states could regulate weaponry, marriage, citizenship and who could vote, etc. All those were lost by Amendments to the Constitution. Intrastate commerce was one of the reason for replacing the Article of Confederation, so I doubt the states would be allowed to regulate it, but the feds could be more restricted in the Commerce Clause.

johnrpack

Intrastate, not interstate. The latter is clearly a federal power.

In any case, there’s no reason to believe those charged with representing the States at such a convention would regard their responsibility so badly as to try to write legislation into the constitution (as opposed to delegation and restriction of powers). You’ll note that no one is proposing Obamacare as a Constitutional Amendment.

ags4ever

the words “Interstate commerce”, like the words “separation of church and state”, have never appeared in the Constitution. Article I, section eight paragraph three of the constitution allows the congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, AMONG the states, and with the Indian tribes.

ags4ever

guesswho, the states never could regulate weaponry, for the 2nd amendment was an absolute prohibition on any government interference with the people’s right to keep and bear arms. That is demonstrated by the comments of the vast majority of those who wrote about and debated the BIll of Rights during the first congress and in the state legislatures during the debates over ratification of each of the first ten ratified amendments we call the bill of rights. And Article IV, section Two paragraph one clearly stated (even before the second amendment was adopted) that no state could violate the rights of any American citizen residing in their jurisdiction that were enjoyed by citizens in other states.

The initial decision of the Roberts court that declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional was made because the house and senate (and president) had used the “commerce clause” to justify imposing a fine or penalty on those who either could not afford to buy health insurance or who didn’t want to buy such insurance. The Roberts court sharply limited the power of the Congress to justify inteference with civil rights based on the Commerce Clause.

BTW, the 14th amendment merely repeated the prohibitions against the states violation of rights of US citizens.

ags4ever

That is one of the methods that the founders gave in Article V, guesswho. If two thirds of the states (at last count, 34 states) agree that a convention should be called for the purpose of amending the constitution, then it the federal government is bound to allow it. But under Article V of the Constitution, any bill amending the Constitution that convention would produce still has to be submitted to the states for ratification, which requires an affirmative vote of 38 states (3/4ths of the states, to next higher whole number) before it becomes an amendment.

The method outlined in article V of the constitution is the only constitutional method of amending the constitution. All changes that the supreme court or any lower court have created by a majority opinion of any court are completely unconstitutional.

johnrpack

The States calling a convention is one of the ways the Founders intended.

Could such a convention propose wild ideas? Yes. Could they replace the whole constitution? Yes. But whatever they come up with requires ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures. Are they going to get wild-eyed ideas past that kind of super-majority? No. Not a chance.

In fact, I suspect the only proposals they could get by a majority of the states are those that strengthen the states at the expense of the federal level — which is exactly what we need right now.

And, yes, that might mean that the States would have the right to regulate weaponry, marriage, intra-state commerce, etc. I’m OK with that. I can always move to another state — like Magpul did.

ags4ever

except for one thing, johnrpack. The states and local governments cannot deny any US citizen any rights that they enjoy in any other state (in other words, no state or local government can regulate the ownership and bearing of arms (weapons)) under Article IV, section two paragraph one and the Fourteenth amendment.

Another thing, johnr. If a “constitutional convention” called by the states were to propose “wild ideas”, one of those “wild ideas” could be that the proposed amended constitution be submitted say, only to the president of the US, who if he/she ratified it, would automatically become the sole leader of the country, subject to no one’s controls or limitations. W hat would stop such a convention, if we go by the precedent set by the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which was created by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

johnrpack

Agreed. However, a constitutional convention could fix that, couldn’t it?

The 14th amendment is not in keeping with the founder’s vision — the rights in the Bill of Rights were not intended to be unlimited or absolute; the intent was that the States could regulate them. In fact, some states had official religions into the early 19th century.

Another example: we all know the famous “yelling fire in a crowded theater” exception to the first amendment. But such a restriction is unconstitutional if made by the federal government — such laws should only be enacted at the state or local levels.

ags4ever

Disagree with you that the founders didn’t intend for rights to be unlimited or absolute. For the founders believed that all citizens were born with their rights, and no government could grant or destroy them. (Read the Declaration of Independence–the “inalienable rights”.). No state or local government was to be allowed to regulate or deny the rights that the federal government could not deny or regulate.

Delegating a state or local government the power to regulate or deny a right of any citizen is saying that that right is not a right at all, but a privilege that can be granted or denied by any government official for any reason, or no reason at all. That was one of the reasons that the colonists revolted against the British King, because the King and Parliament believed they had the power to deny rights to their subjects, or grant them to sycophants and toadies.

All laws that deny or limit any right guaranteed by the first ten ratified amendments (or any of the rights encoded in the body of the Constitution), whether federal, state or local in origin are flatly unconstitutional

johnrpack

So you have the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater? And the states that had official religions for 40 years after the Constitution was adopted were violating the Constitution — even though the founders were right there to stop them?

Sorry, but your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In fact, every inalienable right ends where it begins to trample on the rights of others.

ags4ever

how were the “official religions” of several states in violation of the constituiton? For establishment of religion did not mean that no state could have an “official” religion. It merely meant that those governments could not REQUIRE any religion to teach or preach any specific thing. That was the whole thrust of Jefferson’s “Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association”, in which he used the term “a wall of separation between church and state”. The first amendment prohibits government control of religion.

Wrong, Inalienable rights are precisely that. Inalienable. They cannot be denied by any government to any individual. Your analogy of “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” ignores the fact that no one has any right to assault another person, or hit him or her, without cause that a reasonable or rational person would accept. (like in self-defense).

johnrpack

While I agree that our inalienable rights should never be denied by any government, that’s not always the case. And our Constitution’s Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the states (until the 14th amendment). That’s why some states had official religions for several decades under the Constitution.

But my point is that states do have reason to regulate speech, press, assembly, property, etc. — because some uses of those rights can trample on the rights of others. That’s why the founders did not subject the states to the Bill of Rights.

So, even in the case of religion, it’s proper for the government to prevent the exercise of religion when it violates someone else’s rights (e.g., one church that wants human sacrifice of a non-believer).

BTW, provided that a believer is willing and has legally agreed to it, I have no problem with that believer allowing himself to be sacrificed). That’s his inalienable right. But it’s flat out wrong (and should be) to impose on someone else — and I expect the government to interfere with such religion.

I also expect the government to punish someone who uses their free speech or press to incite harm to another. The right is inalienable, but the practice is not unlimited.

ags4ever

Despite your lies, johnrpack, all the rights guaranteed by the “Bill of Rights” were meant protected originally against state and local government incursions. Read Article IV, section two paragraph one, which states that the states cannot deny rights enjoyed by the citizens of all the other states to citizens who reside in any particular state’s jurisdiction. The constitution clearly protected all the rights guaranteed by the first ten ratified amendments that we call the “Bill of Rights” today against any local or state violations.

The idea that the states and local jurisdictions could violate the federally guaranteed rights of all citizens arose at the same time that some states (in New England, in 1807-1813) began to state that the states could nullify actions of the federal government.

Any religion that required human sacrifice was considered by the founding fathers not to be any kind of religion at all, but first degree murder of human beings.

Your problem though, lies with your last statement, You state that you believe that the states and local governments can violate the right to keep and bear arms because that is not a violation of the right itself turning it into a privilege granted by government, but a limitation of the practice, which is a nonensical splitting of hairs.

johnrpack

I understand how you wish things had been.

However, Massachusetts had an official church — and all elected officials there were required to be members of the Congregationalist Church — until 1833. If what you say were true, that wouldn’t have been allowed.

As for my right to bear arms, in 1783 I could buy a ship and arm her with 30 cannons. Can I do that today — even with cannons of that bygone era?

Oh, but wait, that’s an inalienable right…

Yes, human sacrifice is murder (if the sacrifice isn’t consenting). I agree. But that doesn’t mean that religions that practice it aren’t religions — and certainly our founders would not have been so ignorant as to disagree.

johnrpack

Splitting hairs? If I put a pornographic billboard on my property, facing into your property, does the government have the power to intervene in my freedoms (property, speech, and press)? Even you will agree that they do.

ags4ever

The quote erroneously states that the 10th amendment granted the states the right to make their own laws. The Constitution never “granted” any rights to anyone. Like all rights, that right or power existed before the 10th amendment was ratified. The tenth merely confirms that any power that the federal government is not specifically allowed to have, and that is not specifically prohibited to both the federal government and the states, is reserved to the states and the people.

johnrpack

You’re correct, but it goes beyond that. The Constitution granted limited, defined powers to the federal government — and it has no legitimate authority behind what was granted. The Bill of Rights was set up to guard our pre-existing rights because it was feared that our government would start down the road of exceeding its authority — a fear long since realized (in both scope and detail).

The only solution is for the States to reclaim their proper role in reigning in the federal government.

ags4ever

The word is “reining”, which means to control the government, as “reins” are used to control a horse. “Reigning” is “ruling”. as in the “reign” of Elizabeth II of England.

Tbone

The SCOTUS did no such thing.

ktrav

Denver Post, why do you publish letters like this?!? This guy has ALL of his ‘facts’ completely wrong. State laws cannot overrule federal laws. Period. Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power. The federal court ruled. The state has the right to appeal, which it is, and the federal court will – again – be asked to render a judgment.

So Mr. Green’s bigoted letter gets everything completely wrong. He perpetuates the right-wing spread myth about ‘state’s rights’, which is utter nonsense. For a group of people that claim the supremacy of the US Constitution, they sure like to ignore it.

By the way, this also pertains to marijuana laws. The feds are clear they are not going to jump in over pot and let the states decide. But everyone knows they have the legal right to step in and stop all of it. They choose not to, probably because of the expense and the national public sentiment that is siding with legalization. Marriage Equality also has an overwhelming public approval as well as being backed up by recent Supreme Court decisions throwing out Prop 8 and DOMA.

ktrav

…however, regarding marijuana laws – if Congress and the presidency swings Republican again, it’s a toss-up about where the feds may go regarding marijuana. Were they to find themselves in power soon, I would not doubt for a minute that the Colorado pot laws would be found unconstitutional. I have seen extreme judicial activism in my long life, and it has always come from the right wing of the judiciary, spurred on and installed by a conservative Congress.

ags4ever

What would you call “Roe V. Wade” which is extreme judicial activism perpetuated by a liberal court, that, btw, did not create any constitutional right to murder innocent children, but only found a new, never before found “Right of privacy” in “certain vapors and emanations ” from parts of the Constitution (in other words, made up out of thin air, with no precedent whatever), that it somehow, by some convoluted reasoning said protected the right of a woman to murder her unborn child.

The un Affordable Care Act, which was first declared unconstitutional by the Roberts court, and then Justice Roberts re wrote the law that had been passed by the House and Senate and signed by the president, without submitting that re-written law to the Congress and the president, in violation of Article I, section one of the Constitution, that reserves the power to write laws only to the Congress of the USA, and then changed the fine/penalty for not buying health insurance into a tax, which was a violation of Article I, section seven, paragraph one, which specifically says that only the House of Representatives can originate any bills that have to do with tax revenue, is also an example of a liberally influenced judicial activism, because the liberals on the supreme court took that unconstitutionally rewritten law and declared it to be constituitonal.

ags4ever

States do have the right to over-ride federal laws when the federal law is unconstitutional, as is any law accepting marriage of two persons of the same gender. That is solely within the powers delegated to the states. The Constitution delegates no power to congress or the courts or the executive even to discuss marriage. It is a matter left entirely to the states. That power is not among the enumerated powers delegated to the Congress, or any of the implied powers of the “necessary and proper” clause in Article I, section eight, paragraph eighteen. Moreover, the tenth amendment says that any power that is not specifically granted to the federal government, and that is not specifically denied to both federal and state governments (like passing ex post facto laws, or granting titles of nobility) are reserved to the states or the people.

Slavery was at one time federal law, and was applicable to every state in the USA. In fact, every citizen of every state, and all law-enforcement personnel of other states were obliged under federal law in effect from 1787 through 1865, to return any escaped slave to his /her owner. That was federal law (enforced by the Dred Scott decision).

When you start saying that another is bigoted because you disagree with him, you undermine everything you state. The states do have all the powers not delegated specifically to the federal government that are not specifically denied to both states and the federal government.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...